This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
I wish you all success!
Now, a question.....
I don't know the details of the particular courses you are taking, and what it means by "Precalculus" , but is Mathematics taught in the USA as a series of separate subjects?
(I have never seen the word "precalculus" in any maths text-book old or new so I assume it is a term used by the designers of your particular course. It looks a bit like "pre-ordering" and its ilk.)
I have noticed this apparent fracturing of Mathematics in many messages about education in the USA, and yours adds to that.
Clearly, you cannot learn Calculus unless you can understand Equations and Algebra generally; indeed you cannot study much Maths without Algebra, from simple, practical formulae like Ohm's Law upwards. And the higher the maths and particularly its uses, the more the links between topics.
Yet it has long looked to me as if US schools and colleges at least, if not universities too, break Mathematics into each topic being its own curriculum subject with its own examinations: one in Algebra, one course in Trigonometry, in Percentages, in Geometry, etc..
Is that so?
Is there any particular reason or advantage to doing that, since many maths topics and certainly the practical uses of maths, are interconnected in many ways?
I have asked this quite a number of times but not yet read a definite answer, as if my question mystifies people!
Very different from my own experinece, in the UK. I was taught Maths both at school in the 1960s, and some thirty years later as an adult-student taking the standard school-curriculum Maths course and examination for work reasons. Although the two syllabi differed significantly in contents and difficulty, both treated maths as a cohesive, single subject called "Mathematics". Each covered all those topics and others, ending in an examination that embraced its entire syllabus.
Now, a question.....
I don't know the details of the particular courses you are taking, and what it means by "Precalculus" , but is Mathematics taught in the USA as a series of separate subjects?
(I have never seen the word "precalculus" in any maths text-book old or new so I assume it is a term used by the designers of your particular course. It looks a bit like "pre-ordering" and its ilk.)
I have noticed this apparent fracturing of Mathematics in many messages about education in the USA, and yours adds to that.
Clearly, you cannot learn Calculus unless you can understand Equations and Algebra generally; indeed you cannot study much Maths without Algebra, from simple, practical formulae like Ohm's Law upwards. And the higher the maths and particularly its uses, the more the links between topics.
Yet it has long looked to me as if US schools and colleges at least, if not universities too, break Mathematics into each topic being its own curriculum subject with its own examinations: one in Algebra, one course in Trigonometry, in Percentages, in Geometry, etc..
Is that so?
Is there any particular reason or advantage to doing that, since many maths topics and certainly the practical uses of maths, are interconnected in many ways?
I have asked this quite a number of times but not yet read a definite answer, as if my question mystifies people!
Very different from my own experinece, in the UK. I was taught Maths both at school in the 1960s, and some thirty years later as an adult-student taking the standard school-curriculum Maths course and examination for work reasons. Although the two syllabi differed significantly in contents and difficulty, both treated maths as a cohesive, single subject called "Mathematics". Each covered all those topics and others, ending in an examination that embraced its entire syllabus.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@ArishMell Precalculus is usually the study of functions, slopes and beginning derivatives.
No proofs as in regular Calculus or Analytical geometry or even college algebra.
Some Trigonometry might be included in precalculus. Yet for me Trigonometry was a separate subject. The quadratic equation is definitely discussed in both.
Often precalculus is skipped with Analytical Geometry/Calculus I. Then it's on to University Calculus II.
University Calculus II is where I stopped. Yet much of the math courses I took applied to my Computer science/math degree.
I was well versed in mathematics to be a tutor up to Analytical geometry/calculus I in college.
Percentages, decimals and such are considered apart of basic math.
Beginning Algebra is one step beyond basic math. Beginning Algebra is where variables and simple linear functions are first discussed along with René Descarte Cartesian coordinates.
Algebra II is where non linear functions are discussed
College algebra may combine the two, yet some algebra is necessary. Matrix equations are definitely discussed in college algebra.
There is some overlap between college algebra and precalculus. Like the quadratic equation. Yet emphasize is made on the proof of the quadratic equation.
You actually must be able to prove the quadratic equation in college algebra. With no help. It's your final exam!
College Algebra, Trigonometry, Analytical geometry/calculus I and University Calculus II was what was applied to my degree.
Algebra I or II wouldn't count nor would precalculus. No proofs in any of them.
No proofs as in regular Calculus or Analytical geometry or even college algebra.
Some Trigonometry might be included in precalculus. Yet for me Trigonometry was a separate subject. The quadratic equation is definitely discussed in both.
Often precalculus is skipped with Analytical Geometry/Calculus I. Then it's on to University Calculus II.
University Calculus II is where I stopped. Yet much of the math courses I took applied to my Computer science/math degree.
I was well versed in mathematics to be a tutor up to Analytical geometry/calculus I in college.
Percentages, decimals and such are considered apart of basic math.
Beginning Algebra is one step beyond basic math. Beginning Algebra is where variables and simple linear functions are first discussed along with René Descarte Cartesian coordinates.
Algebra II is where non linear functions are discussed
College algebra may combine the two, yet some algebra is necessary. Matrix equations are definitely discussed in college algebra.
There is some overlap between college algebra and precalculus. Like the quadratic equation. Yet emphasize is made on the proof of the quadratic equation.
You actually must be able to prove the quadratic equation in college algebra. With no help. It's your final exam!
College Algebra, Trigonometry, Analytical geometry/calculus I and University Calculus II was what was applied to my degree.
Algebra I or II wouldn't count nor would precalculus. No proofs in any of them.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@DeWayfarer Isee. Thankyou for explaining it.
The system I had, and all the books I've seen, don't divide it quite like that. Instead they assume a continuum advancing via different forms of equation, to calculus (and beyond, at University level). I have seen text-books dedicated to calculus from introducing it, and other concentrating on advanced pure algebra, but not intended as subjects all on their own.]
I have an early-1960s school maths text-book and it does have hints on social expectations of their time. It was written by a teacher, I think the headmaster, of an English "public school" (by the English definition) whose pupils were from well-off families and groomed for careers in high-pay areas like finance, the Law and the military. So the sections on Percentages concentrate heavily on money: loans, debts, and stocks and shares!
I forget when I was introduced to percentages, in my Local Education Authority (State system) schools. Their use in money may have been the main examples if only because in later life understanding money is a key skill for everyone.
Algebra gained a notoriety because less-numerate puplis (including me!) found their abstract nature hard to handle, but also perhaps because we were rarely given any idea of its meaning and purposes - just how to "do" it. The nearest that the equation exercises came to real-life were timing the cyclist passing a walker in the opposite direction, or more realistically, two trains in opposite directions passing each other.
It may have helped if once we'd passed the introductory phase of basic algebra as arithmetic in general form, then using real formulae from science and engineering. Even if not understanding their purposes in detail, it would at least show that, yes, lots of real people really do use algebra for real work! (Like Ohm's Law.)
....
I met that vagueness in the course I followed in my forties. This was the standard middle-school maths (for pupils in early to mid-teens). Some was simply revision for me but it introduced a very strange beast indeed - The Matrix.
Although at this level it was merely how to add or multiply boxes of simple numbers and manipulate odd things with non-intuitive names, I found it totally baffling because they were taught as having nothing to do with any other branch of mathematics, and no reference to any real-world uses. A scientist told me the analytical software she uses for her work, relies on matrices, but that is in an extremely advanced, specialist area of physics and engineering!
So I never understood matrices even at introductory level, only how to add two boxes of simple numbers, and have never personally met them in real life .
The system I had, and all the books I've seen, don't divide it quite like that. Instead they assume a continuum advancing via different forms of equation, to calculus (and beyond, at University level). I have seen text-books dedicated to calculus from introducing it, and other concentrating on advanced pure algebra, but not intended as subjects all on their own.]
I have an early-1960s school maths text-book and it does have hints on social expectations of their time. It was written by a teacher, I think the headmaster, of an English "public school" (by the English definition) whose pupils were from well-off families and groomed for careers in high-pay areas like finance, the Law and the military. So the sections on Percentages concentrate heavily on money: loans, debts, and stocks and shares!
I forget when I was introduced to percentages, in my Local Education Authority (State system) schools. Their use in money may have been the main examples if only because in later life understanding money is a key skill for everyone.
Algebra gained a notoriety because less-numerate puplis (including me!) found their abstract nature hard to handle, but also perhaps because we were rarely given any idea of its meaning and purposes - just how to "do" it. The nearest that the equation exercises came to real-life were timing the cyclist passing a walker in the opposite direction, or more realistically, two trains in opposite directions passing each other.
It may have helped if once we'd passed the introductory phase of basic algebra as arithmetic in general form, then using real formulae from science and engineering. Even if not understanding their purposes in detail, it would at least show that, yes, lots of real people really do use algebra for real work! (Like Ohm's Law.)
....
I met that vagueness in the course I followed in my forties. This was the standard middle-school maths (for pupils in early to mid-teens). Some was simply revision for me but it introduced a very strange beast indeed - The Matrix.
Although at this level it was merely how to add or multiply boxes of simple numbers and manipulate odd things with non-intuitive names, I found it totally baffling because they were taught as having nothing to do with any other branch of mathematics, and no reference to any real-world uses. A scientist told me the analytical software she uses for her work, relies on matrices, but that is in an extremely advanced, specialist area of physics and engineering!
So I never understood matrices even at introductory level, only how to add two boxes of simple numbers, and have never personally met them in real life .
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@ArishMell Matrices are extremely important in the computer sciences in multiple ways.
An array is basically a matrix. Often given as dimensional.
A[x, y, z]
X:0-∞
Y:0-∞
Z:0-∞
Are you familiar with three dimensional Cartesian coordinates?
That would be the most practical way to understand matrixes.

Notice it resembles a cube. Notice the base of the graph all three lines x, y and z meet at 0 with arrows pointing outwards and pointing to infinity.
We live in a three dimensional world so everything can be described as a matrix.
An array is basically a matrix. Often given as dimensional.
A[x, y, z]
X:0-∞
Y:0-∞
Z:0-∞
Are you familiar with three dimensional Cartesian coordinates?
That would be the most practical way to understand matrixes.

Notice it resembles a cube. Notice the base of the graph all three lines x, y and z meet at 0 with arrows pointing outwards and pointing to infinity.
We live in a three dimensional world so everything can be described as a matrix.
PDXNative1986 · 36-40, MVIP
@DeWayfarer Oh, wow. if that's the future my understanding is sailing towards, the future is simpler than I thought. Right now, I'm just battening down the hatches for Algebra #2, as my understanding is that to even start on Precalculus, you need to have a solid grasp of Geometry and Algebra 2. [media=https://youtu.be/0EnklHkVKXI]
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@PDXNative1986 That's true! Yet proofs are not necessary. Which why your coarse series isn't emphasizing them.
Geometry isn't analyzing. Proofs require analyzing.
In analytical geometry/calculus you must prove the various theories. Like the division derivative. Probably the most difficult one to prove.
It even gave our instructor problems in the middle of the course. 🤣
Geometry isn't analyzing. Proofs require analyzing.
In analytical geometry/calculus you must prove the various theories. Like the division derivative. Probably the most difficult one to prove.
It even gave our instructor problems in the middle of the course. 🤣